I
IvanKaramozov
Guest
Wait, you have proof St. John lived to be 100
- Status
E
elt1956
Guest
More thunder! Hmmm. I wonder if this is how the Bible may have come about? Who gathered the pieces?
E
ericmatthews
Guest
Enough with your judgments that even the Catholic Church has denied from the Catechism of the Catholic Church The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day
I
IvanKaramozov
Guest
A number of Councils decided upon it, from Hippo, Carthage, and Rome to TrentMore thunder! Hmmm. I wonder if this is how the Bible may have come about? Who gathered the pieces?
What does that have to do with anything
S
Sister_Amy
Guest
I wouldn’t, and I don’t. Someone asked me how I could trust the Qur’an if there were no witnesses to see Gabriel talking to Muhammad. So I provided the witnesses. The question implies that witnesses prove it happened. I don’t believe that holds true, because for example there are Biblical texts which rely on anonymous witnesses (i.e., we don’t know who was there, who reported it, who transmitted it) and anonymous chains, but Christians believe that anyway.
But if you can’t believe what people said about something 1300 years ago… can you really believe what people said about something 700 more years past?
S
Sister_Amy
Guest
The Qur’an as I might have mentioned in this thread already was written down within two years after the death of Muhammad. At the time, it had been memorized in its entirety by at least HUNDREDS of Muslims. Every passage was checked several times before being written down in the first compilation.
I mentioned eight witnesses, because these are the only eight that I could find evidence of having actually seen Gabriel. There are other signs of revelation which were witnessed by other people, but let me concentrate on these two events just now.
First I mentioned Umm Salamah–she was a wife of Muhammad, and she is reported to have live the longest after his death among his wives. And we have a number of narrations from her. She is considered a highly reliable source. The way narrations work is that she tells someone, who tells someone, and so on, but every link in the chain is mentioned, and everyone who reported this story from her is known to be trustworthy and have a good memory–the hadith appears in the most authentic books with the highest grade of authenticity except for the Qur’an.
The other seven witnesses I mentioned were all known to be honest men, Companions of Muhammad, who were all present at one particular event. It is peculiar in a number of ways–the most common narration is that which appears in a book called Sahih Muslim, a book of authentic narrations, and it is the very first one mentioned in that book. And it is very common. The most common narration is that from 'Umar, who was a very good friend of Muhammad’s, and who because the caliph after the death of Abu Bakr As-Siddeeq. Abu Hurayrah was another witness to the same event, and he has narrated a tremendous amount from Muhammad, and is known for his very strong memory. Anas bin Maalik worked for Muhammad in his house, and he has also narrated a lot from Muhammad and is a very reliable source because of his known proximity to Muhammad.
If you want more information about them, you can look it up in Islamic history books. Witness-pioneers.org is a really good resource with information on Companions. Also Islamic bookstores usually have books on Companions, “Men Around the Messenger” and so on which would be sources for more information about them.
E
elt1956
Guest
Hello Sister Amy. Good, ponderable answer. What one believes is called FAITH isn’t it whether Muslim or Catholic, or Protestant? Sometimes we do put our foot in our mouth.
I have a question which has nothing to do with the above, but would like a clarification. I “think” I saw on one of the posts that you said that what the Qu’ran says and Muhammud’s actions of war/persecution are two entirely different things? Did I understand that correctly? Another question is how can we Westerners be assured that Islam is a peaceful religion given his warlike actions against unbelievers? Of course the same can be asked of Catholicism and the Crusades can’t it? Peace.
S
Sister_Amy
Guest
Faith, indeed.Hmm… I am sorry if I said something incorrect which has confused you. I will try to be brief here in my explanation but I want to be clear as well.
The Muslims were persecuted in Mecca for 13 years–they were tortured, they were killed, starved, and eventually driven out. They went to Medina. Their property (back in Mecca) had been confiscated, and while in Medina they organized an Islamic rule, where Muhammad was the leader of the city and he had made alliances with the Jewish tribes who lived there. (Yes, he made alliances with them and did not force them to convert.
)But the Muslims in Medina were faced with war, and the difference for them was that while they had not been allowed by God (nor capable) to fight in Mecca, in Medina they had that permission, and also that command. But the reason that they went to war was not to persecute or oppress anyone–it was fighting that was either defensively (against an attacker) or offensively against an enemy that was either oppressing its people, and/or not allowed the Muslims to practice Islam (i.e., pray). **So yes, the Muslims (under leadership of Muhammad) DID in fact go to war, and they were instructed to do so in the Qur’an. **
I bolded that statement to make sure people skimming this post actually see that point–I’m not disputing that Muslims were told to fight. At the same time, the Qur’an also explains WHY they were fighting, WHO they were fighting, and how they were supposed to be JUST at all times, incline towards peace if the enemy wants peace–grant asylum and security to anyone who wants it, etc.
Usually when people want to portray Islam as a violent religion, they leave out all the restrictions, and only the command to fight. And they also leave out the descriptions of who is being fought and why. And to demonstrate the reason to fight, I want to post a verse from the Qur’an, 4:75
And why should ye not fight in the cause of Allah and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated (and oppressed)?- Men, women, and children, whose cry is: “Our Lord! Rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from thee one who will protect; and raise for us from thee one who will help!”
So in Islam there are valid reasons for war, there are, but war is NEVER, ABSOLUTELY NEVER to be used to oppress or persecute innocent people, kill innocent people, corrupt power gains, etc. Never.
The answer is by studying Islam, earnestly. Listen to the Muslims. And I don’t just mean listen to people like me, or the speakers that you find, and don’t just listen to the TV. But actually go to a mosque and listen to a service. Go to the classes they have, and study what they are being taught.Another question is how can we Westerners be assured that Islam is a peaceful religion given his warlike actions against unbelievers? Of course the same can be asked of Catholicism and the Crusades can’t it? Peace.
There is no security at a mosque, nobody will stop you from coming in. But just go in and listen. Actually read the Qur’an–not just pieces of verses quoted in a book by someone else, but sit down and read it in the context.
It WON’T assure you that all Muslims are peaceful and benign–we know that is not the case. And I have no intention whatsoever to justify or cover up the actions of some Muslims which are WRETCHED and ABHORRENT. There are bad people in the world.
Yet the only way to really know about Islam is to study it–that’s what I think.
E
elt1956
Guest
Many thanks for the explanation. I just don’t know enough history. So the battles led by Muhammad were those only fought in Mecca, and he did not propose violenence as a means for conversons to Islam? Now when the Muslams were driven out of Europe, was that a Catholic persecution. because the Catholic Church didn’t want “heretics” in their population? I understand that for several hundred years Muslims and Christians lived peacefully side by side, then suddenly all fell apart. I am sure there were also political reasons for the Muslims being driven out of Europe. There unfortunately usually are. Peace
Hmm… I am sorry if I said something incorrect which has confused you. I will try to be brief here in my explanation but I want to be clear as well.
The Muslims were persecuted in Mecca for 13 years–they were tortured, they were killed, starved, and eventually driven out. They went to Medina. Their property (back in Mecca) had been confiscated, and while in Medina they organized an Islamic rule, where Muhammad was the leader of the city and he had made alliances with the Jewish tribes who lived there. (Yes, he made alliances with them and did not force them to convert.
But the Muslims in Medina were faced with war, and the difference for them was that while they had not been allowed by God (nor capable) to fight in Mecca, in Medina they had that permission, and also that command. But the reason that they went to war was not to persecute or oppress anyone–it was fighting that was either defensively (against an attacker) or offensively against an enemy that was either oppressing its people, and/or not allowed the Muslims to practice Islam (i.e., pray). **So yes, the Muslims (under leadership of Muhammad) DID in fact go to war, and they were instructed to do so in the Qur’an. **
I bolded that statement to make sure people skimming this post actually see that point–I’m not disputing that Muslims were told to fight. At the same time, the Qur’an also explains WHY they were fighting, WHO they were fighting, and how they were supposed to be JUST at all times, incline towards peace if the enemy wants peace–grant asylum and security to anyone who wants it, etc.
Usually when people want to portray Islam as a violent religion, they leave out all the restrictions, and only the command to fight. And they also leave out the descriptions of who is being fought and why. And to demonstrate the reason to fight, I want to post a verse from the Qur’an, 4:75
And why should ye not fight in the cause of Allah and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated (and oppressed)?- Men, women, and children, whose cry is: “Our Lord! Rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from thee one who will protect; and raise for us from thee one who will help!”
So in Islam there are valid reasons for war, there are, but war is NEVER, ABSOLUTELY NEVER to be used to oppress or persecute innocent people, kill innocent people, corrupt power gains, etc. Never.
The answer is by studying Islam, earnestly. Listen to the Muslims. And I don’t just mean listen to people like me, or the speakers that you find, and don’t just listen to the TV. But actually go to a mosque and listen to a service. Go to the classes they have, and study what they are being taught.
There is no security at a mosque, nobody will stop you from coming in. But just go in and listen. Actually read the Qur’an–not just pieces of verses quoted in a book by someone else, but sit down and read it in the context.
It WON’T assure you that all Muslims are peaceful and benign–we know that is not the case. And I have no intention whatsoever to justify or cover up the actions of some Muslims which are WRETCHED and ABHORRENT. There are bad people in the world.
Yet the only way to really know about Islam is to study it–that’s what I think.
S
Sister_Amy
Guest
You’re most welcome, but I’m afraid I don’t know enough history either.
There were battles led by Muhammad that were not only in Mecca, but other places in the Arabian peninsula. However, the battles were never to force conversions to Islam–and that is the very meaning of an ayah in the Qur’an which states that there is no compulsion in religion.
The Muslims ruled Spain for 700 years I think. They did not force conversions, then, and religions were able to flourish, as well as science, medicine, mathematics. But at the same time Eastern Europe had a different experience.Now when the Muslams were driven out of Europe, was that a Catholic persecution. because the Catholic Church didn’t want “heretics” in their population? I understand that for several hundred years Muslims and Christians lived peacefully side by side, then suddenly all fell apart. I am sure there were also political reasons for the Muslims being driven out of Europe. There unfortunately usually are. Peace
E
elt1956
Guest
What happened in Eastern Europe? I am just tooo lazy to look all this up. Thanks so much.
B
BeeSweet
Guest
Muslim rule of Spain began in the mid-late fifth century shortly after the fall of the Roman empire (a little more than 200 years after), and ended with Ferdinand and Isabella (of Columbus fame), shortly after the Black Death pandemic (and just before the start of the Christian Reformation in 1517). During their reign they did not force conversions, but Muslims were the elite of the societies they controlled, with Jews and Christians being marginalized, paying higher taxes, and denied admittance into the military. Jews and Christians were tolerated in the sense that they were not beaten on sight in the street, but they were expected to keep their faith hidden so as not to offend the Muslim ruling class. It was much like an apartheid system, non-Muslims had to give way to Muslims on the street and things like that. So conversion was not forced in the sense that people were threatened, but life was much easier for you if you did convert.
Christianity was illegal in Europe until the year 312 when Emperor Constantine issued the Edict of Milan, the so called “Edict of Toleration”. This was not the legislation that made the church a ruling authority in Europe, it only made Christianity a legal religion in the same way that Judaism was already respected (no more burning Christians as human torches in the Roman imperial gardens…). The last Roman emperor was deposed in the year 476, but this was fully 150 years after the split of the empire into east (Byzantium) and west. By the time of the rise of Islam, Europe was so politically disorganized the Muslim powers took control without much of a force against them. Incidentally, Muslims never took control of Italy.
Shortly after the Muslim invasion in the early 8th century, the east suffered the Iconoclasm. I need to study more on this subject, as it seems there’s a LOT to know about it. From what I understand, a huge upheaval occurred regarding the veneration of icons (as if they were a form of idolatry ~ a big fat no-no). An order was issued (by Justinian whom I’m confused if he was an emperor or a patriarch or what?) for all icons to be pulled from the churches and destroyed (the loss of all that beautiful art being burned and destroyed is seriously lamentable!). This was the beginning of the Great Schism of 1054 which finally separated the church into east and west factions.What happened in Eastern Europe? I am just tooo lazy to look all this up. Thanks so much.
Now here’s the rub about the Muslim rise to power as opposed to the Christian rise to power. Muhammed himself was a political authority. That’s what his battles were all about, that’s why Muslims can claim he was not forcing religion on people, he was seizing political authority primarily. The initial battles he fought were due to his negative influence on his local economy which depended a great deal on all those pagan gods and icons. Mecca was a major trade route, people traveled from all parts of the world to exchange goods there. So when Muhammed came round telling folks they were going to hell for worshiping idols, it was simply bad for business. Muhammad fought for control so he and his followers could practice their faith in peace. Islam is a theocratic religion, there is no separation of church and state. A Caliph, the successor of Muhammed, is both a spiritual and temporal head of Islam.
Christians however became spiritual authorities only when the ruling class converted and mucked things up by giving the church governing authority. That was more than 300 years after Christ came to us (as opposed to less than 50 or so in the case of Muhammed and Islam). The last pope to have political authority was Pope Pius IX, who gave up his temporal powers in 1870 (gave them up freely and peacefully). Christianity was never about seizing political power in the way that Islam was/is. Even the crusades were only a reaction to Islam’s push for political control, the crusades were not initially an offensive measure (although they degraded into something sinful and regrettable).
Remember Jesus said in Matthew 22:21 “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” Christianity makes a democratic republic possible. Islam on the other hand is really only comfortable with rulers who are Muslim. We look at them as if they want to convert us, but the truth is they just want to have political control. Today we see this is changing, as democratically elected governments are becoming the norm around the world. It’s a painful transition, and the fundamentalists, who are the least comfortable with change (no matter what tradition you’re talking about) are going to make it as painful as they can.
Politics and religion are like water and oil.
Now what any and all of that has to do with the OP of this thread, I just don’t know. I’m just a history buff who shoulda gone to bed already.
E
elt1956
Guest
Thanks ster. That’s early Catholic for Sister. I am beginning to understand a bit about Islam now. I guess I’ll just have to dig out the old Qu’ran and read it. Sigh!!!
R
ralphinal
Guest
Ivan,
John living to be 100 is based on tradition as well as other facts, such as the fact that Polycarp studied under John, and in oreder for that to occur, John had to live past the destruction of the temple in 70. Also, there are records of John speaking to churches in 90. How much of that you accept is up to you.
John living to be 100 is based on tradition as well as other facts, such as the fact that Polycarp studied under John, and in oreder for that to occur, John had to live past the destruction of the temple in 70. Also, there are records of John speaking to churches in 90. How much of that you accept is up to you.
T
thedavidwilson
Guest
How did Muslims end up ruling spain? Was there a mass conversion in Spain to islam? Were there any battles that preceeded the muslims ruling spain. Since it is prohibited in Islam to attack someone unless they attack you then that would mean the Spainards attacked the arabian peninsula. When did this occur? You can ask the same questions about north Africa, Israel, Lebenon, Turkey and good portions of modern day Iraq, which were all Christian before the invasion of muslims.
If muslims did in fact invaded these areas what in islam justified these actions? Sister Amy your claim that muslims can only fight when muslims were attacked. What is the definition of being attacked in islam. Some islamic scholars claim that the very existance of non-islamic things is an attack against islam. What is not Islamic is against islam. Is this true? Is me being Catholic and attack on islam? If not then why would I have reduced rights as a Christian in many islamic countries. If not then why are such large areas that were formerly christian, zoroasterian and hindu are now under the oppressive rule of islam?
S
Sister_Amy
Guest
I don’t think I ever said Muslims can only fight when attacked. Because it’s not true. Muslims can fight defensively (which is when a Muslim STATE is attacked, and the STATE defends it–not vigilantism) and they can fight offensively to end oppression. For example, if people are being oppressed in Country X, and not allowed to practice Islam, and there is a Muslim state Country Y, then the Muslim STATE is allowed to go to war with the oppressor to free the people. So I think you have sort of skimmed my posts and assumed I said something that in fact I didn’t say, and then you’re trying to prove that thing wrong. But that was never my statement in the first place.
Of course not.
Don’t you realize that even the MUSLIMS are denied rights in many(all) so-called “islamic countries?” How can you expect Christians to be treated fairly when even the MUSLIMS are oppressed?
Oppressive rule of Islam? Honestly, my answer to this question will **** you off, I’m sure (well, if you’re American), because it’s based on American diplomatic history.
If Spain was Muslim for 700 years and now it’s Catholic, can we say it was formerly Muslim and now under the oppressive rule of Catholicism?
People converted to Islam. Get over it.
B
Booklover
Guest
I don’t think I ever said Muslims can only fight when attacked. Because it’s not true. Muslims can fight defensively (which is when a Muslim STATE is attacked, and the STATE defends it–not vigilantism) and they can fight offensively to end oppression. For example, if people are being oppressed in Country X, and not allowed to practice Islam, and there is a Muslim state Country Y, then the Muslim STATE is allowed to go to war with the oppressor to free the people. So I think you have sort of skimmed my posts and assumed I said something that in fact I didn’t say, and then you’re trying to prove that thing wrong. But that was never my statement in the first place.
Some islamic scholars claim that the very existance of non-islamic things is an attack against islam. What is not Islamic is against islam. Is this true? /quote] The existence of “non-islamic things” is not an attack on Islam. That is sheer idiocy.
Of course not.
Don’t you realize that even the MUSLIMS are denied rights in many(all) so-called “islamic countries?” How can you expect Christians to be treated fairly when even the MUSLIMS are oppressed?
Oppressive rule of Islam? Honestly, my answer to this question will **** you off, I’m sure (well, if you’re American), because it’s based on American diplomatic history.
If Spain was Muslim for 700 years and now it’s Catholic, can we say it was formerly Muslim and now under the oppressive rule of Catholicism?
People converted to Islam. Get over it.
B
Booklover
Guest
Spain was Catholic before the Moors conquered it!=Sister Amy;3384111
If Spain was Muslim for 700 years and now it’s Catholic, can we say it was formerly Muslim and now under the oppressive rule of Catholicism?
People converted to Islam. Get over it.
Vickie
S
Sister_Amy
Guest
My dear, you missed the point entirely.
B
BeeSweet
Guest
As an American, I’d be the first to tell you we are far from perfect, especially as it relates to international diplomacy. I am very interested to know specific details of diplomatic mistakes on our part that have caused so much trouble.
- Status